🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <r+kpc!+@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
> ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
> 
>>Yeah, good point. I kinda wonder what Emory and Clemson told Gwinnett Inc.,
>>and what Gwinnett Inc. told its clients. 
> 
> Well since Clemson is in Alabama and only serves as the MX backup to 
> Emory, one can safely assume they said nothing.  I have a pretty good
> idea what was said from Emory too.

Last I checked the orange tiger paws on the road to Death Valley (the
Clemson football stadium) still led to Clemson, South Carolina.  8-)

> Now you and a few others have been masturbating over emory being
> in the mail path.  Let's just suppose for the sake of argument
> that this mail that you've screamed about routed instead through
> a commercial connection like PSInet or UUNET that has no academic AUP?
> What would you scream about then?

Do people really expect that the administrators at all these sites
are going to inspect all the e-mail that's going through their site
to see if it meets the network guidelines?  I don't think this is
reasonable -- even at a low-usage site, this would be a lot of
trouble for someone who probably has lots of more important things
to do (from the point of view of his or her employers), and at high-
volume sites -- especially those with a lot of connections -- it is
just simply impractical to scan any more than a tiny fraction,
especially if it's sent at night.  Even noting that there was an
"unusual" volume or type of mail might not happen fast enough to
inspect it or stop it unless the person had nothing else to do.

I'm not happy with the ethics that are implied by making this sort of
inspection routine at large numbers of sites, to say nothing of the
cost in lost time and productivity.  Is this really what people want?

Bruce C. Wright